Animal Rights Zone

Fighting for animal liberation and an end to speciesism

Transcript of Brandon Becker's ARZone Guest Chat of 20/21 November 2010

Transcript of Brandon Becker’s ARZone Guest Chat

20 November 2010 at:

3pm US Pacific Time

6pm US Eastern Time

11pm UK Time and

21 November 2010 at:

9am Australian Eastern Standard Time

Carolyn Bailey:

ARZone would like to welcome today’s chat guest, Brandon Becker.

Brandon is a dedicated animal rights activist. He stopped eating flesh in July 2004 and
has been vegan since May 2005. He promotes veganism to the masses by handing out "Why Vegan?" pamphlets on college campuses, at festivals, and at other events throughout North Carolina, US.
With his wife, he founded Triangle Vegan Action, a grassroots anti-speciesist and abolitionist organization:
He and his wife care for two other animals, a rabbit and a cavy, and try to give them the best life possible in their home.

Brandon has generously agreed to engage ARZone members today on a range of topics. Please welcome Brandon to ARZone.

Thomas Janak:
Welcome Brandon

Tim Gier:

Hi Brandon!

Carolyn Bailey:

Welcome, Brandon!



Fifi Leigh:


Mangus O’Shales:



Brandon Becker:
Hi, everyone. Thanks for inviting me!

Brooke Cameron:

Roger Yates:
Hi Brandon

Ben Hornby:
Welcome, Brandon!

Carolyn Bailey:
Before we begin, I’d like to request that people refrain from interrupting Brandon during the chat session. If anyone would like to ask Brandon a follow-up, please feel free to let myself, Tim or Roger know, so as to keep the chat running smoothly. Alternatively feel free to utilise the open session at the completion of Brandon’s formal questions to do so. I’d now like to ask Tim Gier to present the first question to Brandon, go ahead, Tim.

Tim Gier:
Hi Brandon, thanks for taking our questions. Triangle Vegan Action is the group you've founded. What is it's purpose, how is it funded, and what has been the most rewarding part of your being involved with it?

Brandon Becker:
Triangle Vegan Action was founded to promote veganism in the Triangle-region of North Carolina, U.S. As we advocate veganism, we also discuss opposing speciesism and supporting animal rights. Our group is almost entirely self-funded by my wife and I. Some of our members have donated in the past to help us pay our website hosting fees, but we don’t like asking for donations and never want to make anyone feel

like they have to pay any money to be an activist.

The most rewarding part of running the group is that we are self-directed advocates, able to do what we
want, how we want to do it, and continually reflect on the effectiveness
of our work and change course whenever necessary. I encourage anyone who is unsatisfied with organized activism in your area to start your own grassroots group. Visit our website at to learn more about what we do.

Tim Gier:
Thanks Brandon. Matthew McLaughlan has the next question, but cannot attend, so Carolyn will ask on his behalf, please go ahead Carolyn.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks, Tim!

How do you respond to statements in which people use the fact that some animals eat other animals as justification for human persons eating or killing animals? Ex: What is the difference between me hunting deer

and the deer being eaten by a wolf? If the deer is going to die, why does it matter how the deer dies? Isn't hunting a more humane death than being eaten alive by a wolf?

Brandon Becker:
When I hear these kind of statements, I recognize they are primarily made as self-interested rationalizations to justify continuing to allow humans to eat other animals. Here are two differences between you killing and

eating a deer and a wolf killing and eating a deer:

(1) you, unlike a wolf, can be healthy eating plant foods alone and can choose this option;

(2) you, unlike a wolf, are held morally accountable for your actions.

It is also not guaranteed that any particular deer will be killed by any particular wolf.

The book A Green History of the World by Clive Ponting says that “Studies of top carnivores in ecosystems (which is the role humans are trying to adopt when hunting) show that they only make a kill about once in

every ten attempts.” Thus, if you shoot and kill a deer that is about to be attacked by a wolf, you may be taking the deer’s life when they would not have otherwise been eaten by the wolf. Finally, the animal rights movement is not about so-called “humane” deaths, but about ending human tyranny over other animals.

Roger Yates:
Thanks Brandon. Next question comes from Brooke Cameron.

Brooke Cameron:
Thanks! Hi Brandon, and thanks for being here today. I’d like to know how you respond to those who believe that open rescues are violent, irresponsible and done with the emphasis placed on the interest of the rescuers, not the other animals, being rescued from battery cages and other places of slavery and abuse.

Brandon Becker:
Jose Valle, who has participated in open rescues, has a thorough and comprehensive answer to this question, responding to criticism by Gary Francione: I endorse Valle's answer.

Brooke Cameron:
Thanks, Brandon. What did Jose actually say?

Brandon Becker:
Open rescues are not violent; they are about saving nonhuman animals now, and can expose the truth to the public with generally positive media coverage.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks for that, Brandon. Tim Gier would like to ask you another question now, all yours, Tim.

Tim Gier:
Brandon, to forward the cause of animal rights, do you rule out acts of property destruction? Do you consider such acts violent?

Brandon Becker:
I think property destruction can be morally justifiable to economically sabotage industries and free nonhuman animals who are unjustly imprisoned and face certain death. Such acts are not violent; they are an anti-violent

response to violence.

Carolyn Bailey:
Are you OK to take a follow-up to that, Brandon?

Brandon Becker:

Carolyn Bailey:
Go ahead, Roger

Roger Yates:
They were talking about when direct action was justified. Some people had difficulty NOT seeing property destruction as non-violent. Does the fact that people perceive things that way matter - or should we just argue

each case do you think?

Brandon Becker:
With the way property is fetishized in capitalist societies, I understand that some see destruction of property as "violent." However, let's be clear, life > property. We ought to reject the corporate-state definition of "violence" as including destruction of inanimate objects, especially since the inanimate objects destroyed by ALF activists

are used to hide and carry out violence against other animals. If humans, rather than other animals, were the beneficiaries of these actions, most would support them. Let's teach respect for other animals by standing our ground for what is right.

Tim Gier:
Thanks Brandon, Ben Hornby has the next question, but is indisposed, so Roger Yates is asking in his stead....Roger, go ahead

Roger Yates:
Thanks Tim. In the liberation of other animals, when do you feel arson to be an appropriate course of action? If at all, how do you feel about the individuals who will be killed because of this? The insects, bird life etc.

Brandon Becker:
I think arson can be morally justified as long as precaution is taken to minimize unintentionally harming anyone. We have to remember that just by living in industrial civilization we unintentionally harm other animals

through such actions as driving cars which kill one million nonhuman individuals daily, (see: This figure doesn't even include insects, which would raise the death toll far higher. Nor does it take into account the displacement and death caused by
road-building and car culture itself. Intentions matter and arson of empty slaughterhouses and vivisection labs (among other places) is done to stop harm to other animals. We just have to do our best with the world as it is while working to make things better.

Roger Yates:
Hi Brandon. On my blog "On Human-Nonhuman Relations," you talk about the benefits of conducting open rescues anonymously rather than with everyone's faces caught on camera, to protect the nonhumans

& humans involved. In the past the British Animal Liberation Leagues often made the point that by being willing to be seen on camera, activists present themselves as concerned moral citizens as opposed to people who feel the need to hide behind masks. Would you elaborate on your thoughts on your position? Would not the use of masks mean that they were no longer open rescues?

Brandon Becker:
To help others understand what you are talking about, here’s what I said in my comment on your post at

“If the rescue was conducted clandestinely with covered faces and the video released anonymously, it would give increased security to the rescued chickens and still allow Igualdad Animal/Animal Equality (and

anyone else) to use the footage to expose the current conditions of the egg industry in Spain while also promoting veganism to society. ALF activists conducted a number of high-profile clandestine rescues in the U.S. in the 1980s, anonymously releasing videos of actions for aboveground groups to expose the atrocities inflicted upon nonhuman animals behind the walls of vivisection labs. The clandestine rescues and anonymous release of the tapes helped secure the safety of both the rescuers and the rescued.”

To elaborate, I think both open rescues and clandestine rescues have value. It is up to the individual or group taking action to decide what type of rescue is appropriate in their situation. Open rescues have the

benefit of those doing the action speaking openly about the action and framing it politically as civil disobedience, with the drawback of potential prosecution for “theft” as nonhuman animals are legal property and possibly
“terrorism” due to Green Scare speciesist laws that protect oppressors. Clandestine rescues have benefits of keeping the rescuers safer from prosecution (as the state will have a harder time figuring out who did the action) and the rescued safer from being returned to their slave masters (as the state will
have a harder time figuring out where the nonhuman animals went if no one knows who freed them). Clandestine rescuers either rely on their own statements to media outlets such as the North American Animal Liberation Press Office ( and Bite Back Magazine
( or allow those media outlets to explain their actions for them.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks, Brandon. Roger would like to ask a follow-up to that question, if that's OK with you?

Brandon Becker:
Go ahead, Roger.

Roger Yates:
Thanks Brandon - I wish all guests were so accommodating!

As a follow-up to the last question, you talk about accepting the characterisation of activists as criminals in order to make plain that activists are breaking existing laws in the service of greater justice. You mention that the movement must reject adopting labels such as "violent" and "terrorist" when talking about direct action

and those who liberate nonhumans. Would you explain what you mean?

Brandon Becker:
I'll quote my comment on your blog post linked above so everyone understands what I stated earlier: “I don't think the ‘we are criminals’ line hurts at all, considering rescues, clandestine and open, are defiant acts of breaking speciesist law in the service of justice. If the movement stands behind such acts to counter industry propaganda that label the rescuers ‘violent’ and ‘terrorist’, the message can be conveyed to the public

that the law is unjust and other animals deserve to live and be free." "Here's an example of a direct action that freed an imprisoned bird with an anti-speciesist call to action to the public on behalf of all other animals, merging
education and liberation:

To elaborate, the U.S. legal system currently defines nonhuman animals as property instead of rights-holding persons under the law. If someone illegally rescues a nonhuman animal from captivity, the state may

prosecute the rescuer as a criminal who committed “theft” and may be labeled a “terrorist” in violation of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act that protects enslavers over the enslaved. Instead of accepting guilt, the prosecuted rescuer could choose to make a political statement by arguing that other animals are
unjustly held as legal property and assert that nonhuman animals should instead be defined as persons. Even if they lost the case (a likely scenario in our speciesist society), their civil disobedience would still be a stand for

Kate Go Vegan:
Thanks Brandon

Tim Gier:
Thanks Brandon, for providing such a detailed response. Carolyn Bailey has the next question, Carolyn, go ahead please.

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Tim. Brandon, can you tell us a little about the focus and goals of your group “Animal Rights Now”, which has over 6,000 members, please?

Brandon Becker:

Animal Rights Now is a group I started on Facebook. The group's origins go back to 2006, when Facebook was encouraging its members to start “Political” cause groups. It’s original name was “Animal Rights Now!” and
I kept it online until mid-2007 when I wanted to change the name but Facebook wouldn’t allow any changes to names of groups at this time. So I started a new group called “Abolitionist Animal Rights” to replace the deleted “Animal Rights Now!” group. Last year (2009), Facebook now gave us the option to change group names,
so I decided to change the group name from “Abolitionist Animal Rights” to “Animal Rights Now” as I realized that the current name implicitly suggested that there could be something called “reformist animal rights” or
“regulationist animal rights” when in reality, animal rights rejects rights-violating means to rights-respecting ends and has the abolition of enslavement (based on the right to liberty) and murder (based on right to life)
of other animals as the consequence of rights. The idea of the group is that the members are committed to respecting the moral rights of other animals now by living vegan while also working to secure the legal rights of other animals as soon as possible through various forms of activism. Anyone can visit and join the group at:

Carolyn Bailey:

Thanks, Brandon. Jason Nightingale also has a question for you but couldn't be here, so I'll ask for him. Brandon, you seem to support both Joan Dunayer and Steve Best, I’m interested to hear
what you think of Best’s attack on Dunayer ~
. It would appear from reading this that Best may not have thoroughly read Speciesism, do you support his attack on Dunayer? Why or why not?

Brandon Becker:

I would not label Steve Best’s critical review of Speciesism an “attack” on Joan Dunayer, as he ends by saying: "“On the whole, Speciesism is a superb examination of the moral and political failures of welfarism, and a lucid examination of rights and the abolitionist policies an animal rights position implies and demands. Despite its philosophical inconsistencies and political deficits, this book is a must read for the entire animal advocacy movement and worthy of careful study and sustained discussion." That said, no one has all the answers and I support rational inquiry to determine the best path forward in the movement. There is room for a
diversity of liberationist voices and we should embrace it as a strength while always making clear that our loyalty is solely to nonhuman animals, not any advocate or advocacy group.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks again, Brandon! Tim Gier would like to ask another question, thanks, Tim

Tim Gier:
You mention that you use Vegan Outreach's “Why Vegan” pamphlet when you work on college campuses. Why not use a clearly abolitionist pamphlet instead?

Brandon Becker:
Vegan Outreach provides these pamphlets free of charge to me and other volunteers who distribute them on college campuses and other places. I’ve handed out over 30,000 to date (see: ) and continually see the positive results of this work as I return to schools I’ve leafleted in the past and hear many students who tell me that, as a result of getting a pamphlet, they have decided to stop eating flesh, go vegan, and sometimes get active. While not perfect, the “Why Vegan?” pamphlet is the most effective pamphlet for leafleting, as it visually documents and
describes the injustice of enslavement, transport, and slaughter of other animals for food, while offering veganism as the solution with helpful advice on how to make the transition.

I recommend reading the Vegan Outreach essay published in 1998 that changed the course of the movement: “Veganism: The Path to Animal Liberation”
And finally, Vegan Outreach shares our beliefs and
goals:“Vegan Outreach’s philosophy is that each sentient individual has a right to his or her body and life. To that end, we promote living so as to contribute to as little animal suffering and death as possible, focusing on ‘preaching to the convertible’ with our booklets.”

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks, Brandon. Tim would like to ask a follow-up if that's OK?

Brandon Becker:
Sounds good.

Tim Gier:
Thanks Brandon. As I read it then, you'd be happy to hand out some other literature, such as Boston Vegan's pamphlet, if it were as effective? And can you comment on whether you see any failings in some of Vegan Outreach's current approach?

Brandon Becker:
I’ve used the Boston Vegan Association’s pamphlet combined with other literature for tabling, but the BVA did not produce it for leafleting since it’s not comprehensive and they don’t have the funds to make

it available for leafleting anyway. I’ve also used LOVE’s “You Can Help Stop This” pamphlet for tabling: This one could be used for leafleting, but I don’t have the money to print massive quantities of these needed for leafleting distribution. Regarding Vegan Outreach, I’d like if
their “Why Vegan?” pamphlet would also include info on other forms of speciesist exploitation, but I understand the focus on using other animals for food since this form of exploitation has the highest death toll and is the
foundation of speciesism and human supremacy.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks again, Brandon, for your great responses! Will would like to ask you a question now, thanks, Will.

You’ve been a vegan and an activist for a while now. Have you had to deal with feelings that many activists have of despair--- or hopelessness, realising how difficult the task is - and how resistant society seems to the idea of change?

Brandon Becker:
Yes, I have dealt with feelings of despair and hopelessness. However, by staying active through tabling, leafleting, and other outreach, I receive positive feedback from the public that helps overcome negative feelings

and allows me to continue pushing onward to help end speciesist exploitation and secure justice for nonhuman animals.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks, Brandon, Brooke Cameron has one more question for you, go ahead, Brooke.

Brooke Cameron:
Brandon, I've seen you talk about how "intramovement politics" don't do anything to help people become vegan. What do you see as the appropriate way to critique others in the movement without being divisive & counter-productive?

Brandon Becker:
Constructive debate and dialogue is important and necessary. To do so, we must discuss issues with humility and remember that any disagreements with each other in the movement are more than outweighed by our

shared disagreement with industries that are built on mass enslavement and murder of other animals and want nothing more than to see the animal rights movement destroyed. We need to keep the focus on nonhuman animals and winning their liberation.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks again, Brandon. Tim Gier would like to ask another question, which will wrap up the formal session for today, before a brief open session. Thanks, Tim.

Tim Gier:
Brandon, I believe you've said that you consider speciesism to be the fundamental problem with respect to our relationship with other animals. Would you please elaborate on what you mean and how you envision the solution?

Brandon Becker:
Speciesism is the devaluation of other animals in attitude and oppression of other animals in practice. Joan Dunayer discusses this in her book Speciesism as does David Nibert in his book Animal Rights/Human Rights,

both of which I highly recommend. We need to talk about speciesism so that the ideology can be named and countered in our advocacy. Other animals are not lesser than us; they are our equals and deserve respect as fellow sentient beings. I discuss anti-speciesism in a recent topic on the ARCO Abolitionists
board, explaining the scope of the problem and the solution: “Anti-Speciesism:
A Revolutionary Praxis”

Promoting veganism, calling out speciesism and encouraging others to oppose it, and advocating animal rights are all ways to undermine speciesism and the system of human supremacy it supports. We need a

multifaceted and dynamic movement if we are going to be successful. The lives of other animals depend on our dedication to the struggle. Let us never give up and relentlessly push forward until liberation is won.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks so much, Brandon. Your responses have been thoughtful, educational and very much appreciated. I sincerely thank you for taking the time to offer such great responses. I’d like to open the chat up to anyone else who wishes to engage Brandon, and will start with a question from Nath, who had to leave a short time ago. If there are any further questions for Brandon, please PM either myself, Roger or Tim.

What do you think of the idea and belief by some in the animal movement that factory farmed animals, where they live a life of torture and hell and then end up being brutally killed, are perfectly ok to feed to companion animals?

Brandon Becker:
Dogs can be fed vegan food and live healthy lives. Some male cats have developed urine crystals if fed commercial vegan food that contains essential amino acids, but female cats are said to generally do well on it. My friend lives with a male and a female cat fed Evolution cat food and both have no problems at all. Just some

male cats have problems. I live with a rabbit and a cavy, who are herbivores and thus only eat plant foods.

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks, Brandon. Roger would like to ask one more question now, thanks, Rog.

Roger Yates:
Our transcriber Kate is passionate about insects and will be upset I’m sure by your view that arson may be acceptable. It really isn’t the case that nonhumans will not be killed if arson is used so aren’t we plunged

into some utilitarian calculus trying to work out the greater good?

Brandon Becker:
We don't live in a perfect world and, as such, some insects are unintentionally killed by humans from just daily living- walking on grass (accidentally stepping on them) or running or riding a bike (one may accidentally fly into

your mouth). Since insects are everywhere, and basically all our actions involve some level of risk to someone, we should just do our best to minimize unintentional harm with the world as it is. This doesn't mean we have the right to enslave insects and murder them (intentional harm), but it does mean that we need to understand the reality of the situation and proceed appropriately.

Kate Go Vegan:
Arson = Mass murder!

Brandon Becker:
Murder is different than killing. Killing can be intentional or unintentional, murder is always intentional.

Kate Go Vegan:
Accidentally setting fire to them? Is this what you mean?

Brandon Becker:
And murder is always unprovoked and never in self-defense or defense of an innocent and defenseless person.

Brandon Becker:
Yes, if there is an insect trapped in a building and can't get out in time, this is not the fault of the arsonist. They should take precaution to minimize harm, but you can never be 100% sure of your actions. Do

you oppose controlled demolition of buildings? What about firefighters setting
fire to an empty building to practice putting the fire out?

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks Brandon, if there are no more questions, I'd like to sincerely thank you, for being very generous with your time today and going far over the allotted time. I'd also like to thank you, Brandon, for your insight and excellent responses today

Richard McMahan:
I'm a fan. :-)

Tim Gier:
Brandon, thank you very much!

Brooke Cameron:
Thanks, Brandon, this was great!

See you later mate.

Mangus O’Shales:
Thanks Brandon

Richard McMahan:
Thank you.

Barbara DeGrande:
Thanks Brandon!

Angela Dillon:
Thank you. It was very interesting.

Roger Yates:
Cheers Brandon

Roger Yates:
ARZone exists to promote rational discussion about our relations with other animals and about issues within the animal advocacy movement. Please continue the debate after “chats” by starting a forum discussion or making a point under a transcript.

Brandon Becker:
Thanks everyone for the kind words. I appreciate discussing these issues. Like I said, even if we disagree on some issues, our commonalities should still keep us in solidarity.

Kate Go Vegan:
Thank you Brandon

Carolyn Bailey:
Thanks again, Brandon, we really do appreciate your effort and time!

Richard McMahan:
And thank you Animal Rights Zone.

Tim Gier:
Next weekend is a holiday weekend and we have no guest scheduled for a chat. However, we will be hosting an open session for all members to discuss two questions.

"What is the proper role of the internet in the animal advocacy movement"

“What counts as activism, and which actions are counter-productive to helping nonhumans?"

Mangus O’Shales:
Thanks ARZ. This was a very good chat, I learned something

Brooke Cameron:
I like your name, Mangus

Trent Engelhart:
that was good

Brandon Becker
If anyone has any further questions, you can contact me through Facebook. Thanks everyone for listening and I hope the transcript will get others thinking critically about these issues and inspire discussion.

Christina Louise:
Thanks Brandon.

Bea Elliot:
Glad I sat in on this one... Thanks Brandon and ARZone - Many issues are now clearer to me. :-)

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) is a voluntary, grassroots, abolitionist animal rights social network created in December 2009 with the aim of encouraging rational dialogue in the animal protection movement.

Views: 255

Add a Comment

You need to be a member of Animal Rights Zone to add comments!

Join Animal Rights Zone

Comment by red dog on February 5, 2011 at 14:51
I've always found Brandon's comments on various forums and blogs to be very insightful and well expressed. This was an informative chat that led to a good discussion about direct action tactics and which ones should be considered unacceptable. People on both sides made valid points, but as Brandon pointed out, referring to all arsons as "mass murder" would imply condemnation of all driving, construction work, cleaning an apartment that is also home to small insects ... I think there are no easy answers here.
Comment by Linda on November 22, 2010 at 4:37
I Thank you , and the Animals sure do !



  • Add Videos
  • View All

ARZone Podcasts!

Please visit this webpage to subscribe to ARZone podcasts using iTunes


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Follow ARZone!

Please follow ARZone on:




A place for animal advocates to gather and discuss issues, exchange ideas, and share information.

Creative Commons License
Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) by ARZone is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Disclaimer

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) is an animal rights site. As such, it is the position of ARZone that it is only by ending completely the use of other animal as things can we fulfill our moral obligations to them.

Please read the full site disclosure here.

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Mission Statement

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) exists to help educate vegans and non-vegans alike about the obligations human beings have toward all other animals.

Please read the full mission statement here.





© 2024   Created by Animal Rights Zone.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service